| Output/Results: |
The seminar was well organised by the Journalists’ Union of Moldova. The participants received files containing various relevant documents, including the Moldovan legislation regarding defamation, the Code of Ethics adopted by Moldovan journalists, as well as the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers on freedom of political debate in the media, translated into Romanian.
The objective of the seminar was reached: in the light of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding defamation in the press, which was presented by the two CoE experts, the participants examined relevant Moldovan legal framework and its application by the courts.
The participants noticed that the issue of defamation constitutes a serious problem in Moldova.
On the one hand, regarding the legal framework, Article 170 on defamation has recently been removed from the Penal Code, which is a positive fact in itself. Nevertheless, there are other articles in the Penal Code that might allow the journalists be jailed for ‘libel of judges, criminal investigators and enforcers of justice’, for ‘profanation of national and State symbols’ or for ‘insulting a military person’. Furthermore, the new Civil Code does not provide any upper limits for fines concerning moral damage in civil defamation. As a result, a number of economically vulnerable Moldovan media outlets are under permanent threat to stop their activity, as the courts currently accept even the most disproportionate claims for fines concerning moral damage.
On the other hand, as the judicial practice is concerned, the local experts noticed the lack of independence of judges in Moldova and the fact that, disregarding the European standards, Moldovan politicians and pubic persons usually win in the courts: only 3-4% of cases on defamation before the courts are won by journalists.
This judiciary practice has a chilling effect on the investigative journalism; self-censorship is widely practiced by the media.
In the situation when journalists are punished for justified criticism of authorities or for investigation of corruption, any discussions on self-regulation or on fair journalism loose much of their relevance. Nevertheless, the participants stressed the importance of keeping high professional standards and the need of further journalists’ training.
The participants welcomed the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the CoE on freedom of political debate in the media, which clearly underlines the right of the media to criticise the state, public institutions or political figures. At the same time, the participants regretted that this Declaration is not implemented by the government. They also regretted the absence at the seminar of the representatives of state, public institutions or Parliament.
|
| Conclusions/Follow Up: |
At the close of the seminar, the participants drew up an action plan aiming at the improvement of the situation described during the debates. This action plan includes in particular the following proposals:
- modify the legislation in order to strengthen the real independence of the judiciary;
- bring this legislation in line with the European standards regarding freedom of expression and information and create fair legal and economical conditions for the functioning of independent media;
- denationalise the press controlled by the state (the largest part of Moldovan press);
- encourage the direct application of the ECHR case-law by Moldovan courts;
- closely monitor judicial practice regarding defamation cases.
All these suggestions for an action plan were sent to the Government and Parliament, as well as to the media and NGOs. The work during the seminar was reported in the Moldovan press.
|
